A was recruited to work abroad by Speedy Recruitment Agency as a technician for a Saudi Arabian construction firm, with a monthly salary of $650.00. When she got to the construction site, the employer compelled her to sign another contract that referred her to another employer for a salary of $350.00. She worked for the second employer and was paid $350.00 until her two-year contract expired. Upon her return to the Philippines, she filed a case against the agency and the two employers. May the agency validly raise the defense that it was not privy to the transfer of A to the second employer? Explain. (3%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
No, Speedy Recruitment Agency cannot validly raise the defense of lack of privity. Under Section 10 of Republic Act 8042, the local recruitment agency is solidarily liable with the foreign principal for all money claims
Unlock the full Labor Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, what is the nature of the liability of a local recruitment agency for claims arising from an overseas employment contract?
Local recruitment agencies are solidarily liable with the foreign principal for all employment contract claims.
What is the legal status of a second employment contract signed abroad that reduces an overseas worker's salary below the POEA-approved contract?
Contract substitution reducing approved wages is null and void under Philippine overseas employment laws.
Can a local recruitment agency avoid liability for a contract substitution committed abroad by claiming lack of privity or knowledge?
Lack of privity is not a valid defense because solidary liability persists throughout the entire contract.
What is the primary purpose of imposing solidary liability on local recruitment agencies under Republic Act No. 8042?
Choices available with full access.
Until when does the solidary liability of a local recruitment agency over an overseas employment contract persist?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Solidary Agency Liability
Under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022, the local recruitment agency and the foreign principal are jointly and solidarily liable for any and all claims arising out of the employment contract. This statutory joint and solidary liability is primary and direct, designed by law to assure overseas Filipino workers of an immediate and effective redress of grievances against local recruitment agencies, which remain within the jurisdiction of Philippine labor tribunals.
2. Overseas Contract Substitution
Contract substitution occurs when an overseas Filipino worker is compelled or induced to execute a new employment contract abroad that alters or reduces the benefits approved by the POEA/DMW. Under Philippine labor law, contract substitution is strictly prohibited and constitutes an act of illegal recruitment. Any substitute contract signed abroad reducing wages or benefits is null and void, and the original POEA-approved employment contract remains the legally binding baseline for all monetary claims.
3. Privity Defense Rule
A local recruitment agency cannot invoke the defense of lack of privity or lack of knowledge regarding contract modifications or employee transfers executed abroad. The solidary liability imposed by Republic Act No. 8042 continues throughout the entire duration of the employment contract and extends to all breaches committed by the foreign principal. Voluntary corporate participation in the transfer or substitution is not required to trigger the local agency's statutory solidary monetary liability.